The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut (1647-1697) eBook

she did hate goody Aiers it did appear that she bore
her great yea more than ordinarily good will as apeared
by releeuing her in her truble, and was couert way,
and was trubled that is was discouered; likewise when
goody Aiers said in court, this will take away my
liffe, goody Seger shuffed her with her hand & sd
hould your tongue wt grinding teeth Mr. John Allen
being one wittnes hearto when he had spoken, she sd
they seek my innocent blood; the magistrats replied,
who she sd euery body. 4ly being spoken to about triall
by swiming, she sagd the diuill that caused me to
com heare can keep me up.

“About the buisnes of fliing the most part thought
it was not legally proued.

“Lastly the woman and Robert Stern being boath
upon oath their wittnes was judged legall testimony
ore evidence only som in the jury because Sternes
first words upon his oath were, I saw these women and
as I take it goody Seger was there though after that
he sayd, I saw her there, I knew her well I know God
will require her blood at my hands if I should testifie
falsly. Allso bec he sd he saw her kittle, there
being at so great a distance, they doubted that these
things did not only weaken & blemish his testimony,
but also in a great measure disable it for standing
to take away liffe.”

“WALT. FYLER.”

Elizabeth Seager was acquitted.

ELIZABETH GODMAN

Of all the women who set the communities ablaze with
their witcheries, none in fertility of invention and
performance surpassed Elizabeth Godman of New Haven—­a
member of the household of Stephen Goodyear, the Deputy
Governor. Reverend John Davenport said, in a sermon
of the time, “that a froward discontented frame
of spirit was a subject fitt for ye Devill,”
and Elizabeth was accused by Goodwife Larremore and
others of being in “such a frame of spirit,”
and of practicing the black arts.

She promptly haled her accusers before a court of
magistrates, August 4, 1653, with Governor Theophilus
Eaton and Deputy Governor Stephen Goodyear present;
and when asked what she charged them with, she desired
that “a wrighting might be read—­wch
was taken in way of examination before ye magistrate,”
in May, 1653. The “wrighting” did
not prove helpful to Elizabeth’s case.
The statements of witnesses and of the accused are
in some respects unique, and of a decided personal
quality.